faazshift wrote:You are entirely set against the idea of a more intelligent being than ourselves having created us, so you will probably never open your mind to the possibility. I am certain that we were created.

My mind is open to believing absolutely anything that can be backed up with a great enough quantity and quality of evidence.

faazshift wrote:First off, I have thoroughly thought out my personal religious beliefs and find it completely logical. Second, I have prayed long and hard and come to know for my self that there is truly a God and that my religious beliefs are correct. So I am not believing against my better judgment, but because of it. I cannot just give you my testimony, but I know for my self that my beliefs are true.

How nice for you. Now if you can provide me with any real evidence to explain why you "know", I'm interested.

I won't lie, you're going to have a hard time getting together enough to convince me... But my whole point is, that's not because I've made any kind of decision on what I'm willing to believe or not. In fact it's the reverse: I'll believe in anything at all, even *gasp*, a world without magical deities, because it makes no unreasonable assertions, requires no suspension of disbelief, and probably best of all doesn't require me to want to grovel in reverence of anything.

-- Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:53 pm --

turbo420 wrote:It is not my place to force my beliefs on anyone else, but be a good scientist and explore all options before making a decision. I encourage you to research and decide for yourself. Here is an interesting topic: . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code. As for me and my house, we will worship the Lord.

Even if that link contained absolute unshakable proof that there are hidden messages in the Bible, then that's all it's proved, and nothing else.

Spectre557 wrote:Nothing you could ever claim about god or spirituality could be substantiated or backed up in any way by real evidence, and even if it could, then only the small part for which there was evidence would be proven, not the whole thing.

A lot of questions have been raised with regards to first life forms (single celled organisms) to appear on Earth. While obviously no one knows what happened, think about it in this way; organic matter CAN be made from non-living matter. We are made of elements but I can assure you none of the elements are independently alive. Organic matter has a pretty broad definition, but for the most part it requires some combination of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and occasionally nitrogen (there are other elements involved in some organic compounds, but these four are the most common). Now, we know empirically that elements will bond together and form compounds sometimes spontaneously, but usually due to applied energy. A forming planet filled with high pressures and temperatures has plenty of energy to go around, so we're ready to start cooking.

So the question raised is "What are the odds that these elements happen to come together in just the right way to form these organic compounds?" While at first glance it seems like a long shot, when you take into consideration that hydrogen. oxygen, and carbon (these three elements alone make up 93% of our body) are the first, third, and fourth most abundant elements in the universe respectively, doesn't it seem likely that these elements would come into contact with each other?

If that's not enough, carbon forms more compounds than ANY other element on the periodic table, the vast majority of which are completely stable. Oxygen reacts with almost any organic compound at standard conditions, more so with higher activation energy available. Hydrogen, as the most abundant element in the universe, reacts with almost anything, particularly under high temperatures and pressures. So is it really that far fetched that these elements would come into contact with each other and form organic compounds, which (as the name suggests) are the basis of all life?

"If I ever start a software company, I'm going to replace desks with toilets. I do my most inspired programming in the bathroom."

Dredric1 wrote:there is enough evidence for intelligent design as there is for evolution

Bullshit. You haven't provided any. You've TOLD me there's evidence, but I haven't seen it, and you haven't tried to show it to me.

Dredric1 wrote:but your life should really not be based on evidence

I have now completely lost all faith (no pun intended) in your ability to be a logical human being. You are obviously devoid of any ounce of reason. Sorry to stoop to personal blows, but arguing with you is like arguing with a rock (which we did not evolve from, faazshift).

Anything else I have to say can be summed up by Spectre's excellent post.

I found an article that deeply and powerfully explains the necessity of intelligent design and how I feel on the subject. Its a good half-hour to an hour of reading, but its quite excellent. If anyone cares to read it, or read parts of it, heres a link: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=2&id=623.

faazshift wrote:I found an article that deeply and powerfully explains the necessity of intelligent design and how I feel on the subject. Its a good half-hour to an hour of reading, but its quite excellent. If anyone cares to read it, or read parts of it, heres a link: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=2&id=623.

Although I'd love to read, take in, and think about what's written there, I just genuinely cannot motivate myself to... The slim chance of actually finding something so conclusive as to reasonably contend any other theories seems so minute it isn't worth 30-60 minutes of my time.

I'd love a summary of what its basic points and arguments are, though, even if only to prove it can be lumped in with the rest of the God-Squad drivel.

first: the things we need to understand 1. Intelligent Design and Evolution are direct opposites so if Intell. Des. is correct than evolution is false and if evolution is correct than intelligent des. is false. one of them has to be true because if the universe was not intelligently designed than it came into existance all by its self. and the argument can be taken the other way too.

2.the universe has to have an origin. where did the first atom come from? the first photon of light? the first pull of gravity?the first electric charge?

lets take these to facts to the next level

if you take a box that is sealed and has nothing inside how are you to cause the box to become full if there is no inlet or outlet?you cant because you cant make something of nothing. nor can you make nothing of something

so the universe being at one time empty could not of itsself become full

therefore the theory of Evolution is false

But how do you explain the multiverse theory....??

I'm not to well read on it but from what I can understand, it's the theory of different dimensions and alternate realities. It says that our universe is one of an infinite number of other universes that overlap each other but we can't see them because they are in different dimensions....or something like that.

is the thread title really asking me to compare a - until now - not proven wrong scientific theory with complete bullshit?

This thread just proves only one thing .... ppl should go and learn something about how science works.one of the funniest things i read so far (and i read only the last 2 posts) was:

1. Intelligent Design and Evolution are direct opposites so if Intell. Des. is correct than evolution is false and if evolution is correct than intelligent des. is false. one of them has to be true because if the universe was not intelligently designed than it came into existance all by its self. and the argument can be taken the other way too.

my university prof would probably send me to scientific hell if i would argument like this in any kind of text that is suppose to "prove" anything. Get your facts ppl ...

With this world there is no understanding, we belong their only to the extent, as we rebel against it (Theodor W. Adorno) --> if somebody knows a "official" translation for the well known german quote ... pls let me know!

nermd wrote:is the thread title really asking me to compare a - until now - not proven wrong scientific theory with complete bullshit?

This thread just proves only one thing .... ppl should go and learn something about how science works.one of the funniest things i read so far (and i read only the last 2 posts) was:

1. Intelligent Design and Evolution are direct opposites so if Intell. Des. is correct than evolution is false and if evolution is correct than intelligent des. is false. one of them has to be true because if the universe was not intelligently designed than it came into existance all by its self. and the argument can be taken the other way too.

my university prof would probably send me to scientific hell if i would argument like this in any kind of text that is suppose to "prove" anything. Get your facts ppl ...

nermd wrote:is the thread title really asking me to compare a - until now - not proven wrong scientific theory with complete bullshit?

This thread just proves only one thing .... ppl should go and learn something about how science works.one of the funniest things i read so far (and i read only the last 2 posts) was:

1. Intelligent Design and Evolution are direct opposites so if Intell. Des. is correct than evolution is false and if evolution is correct than intelligent des. is false. one of them has to be true because if the universe was not intelligently designed than it came into existance all by its self. and the argument can be taken the other way too.

my university prof would probably send me to scientific hell if i would argument like this in any kind of text that is suppose to "prove" anything. Get your facts ppl ...

you base your opinions on your university professor

thats sad.

whats wrong with the argument

The problem with the argument is that it is quite simply uneducated and ill-informed. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of either life or the universe, therefore it does not, and cannot, negate the possibility of an intelligent creator as a point of evolutionary origin.

Dredric1 wrote:let us look at this Debate logicaly

2.the universe has to have an origin. where did the first atom come from? the first photon of light? the first pull of gravity?the first electric charge?

lets take these to facts to the next level

if you take a box that is sealed and has nothing inside how are you to cause the box to become full if there is no inlet or outlet?you cant because you cant make something of nothing. nor can you make nothing of something

so the universe being at one time empty could not of itsself become full

therefore the theory of Evolution is false

You're assuming that every event must have a cause, which is not true. Events such as radioactive decay have no apparent cause, suggesting that there are exceptions, albeit rare ones. A cause also must precede an event, by its very definition. If time began with the universe, then "before", "cause", or any other idea which could be used to describe a preceding event, cannot apply. It also becomes a logical impossibility for the universe to have been caused. Assuming that your logic is correct, though, God must also have been caused. As many theists like to claim, "God has or needs no cause/transcends cause/etc.", the same reasoning means that the universe also has no cause or transcends cause.

And, again, Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life, or the origin of the universe.